All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
January 2, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Happy New Year and welcome to the EIB Network to the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where Rush will be back tomorrow.
Rush Limbaugh returns tomorrow for the beginning of the 2007 year.
We have a day, however, to get at it because a lot is going on, and we're going to be talking all about it.
I am Roger Hedgecock in for Rush today, coming at you from KOGL Radio in San Diego, the home of the San Diego Chargers, the best record in the NFL, home field advantage throughout the playoffs, and the best team in the NFL.
I know I get callers, and I know the rest of you have your favorites, but hey, every dog has his day.
We haven't been in the Super Bowl since we were humiliated by the 49ers in the mid-90s, and with the best record ever in the history of this franchise this year, and a number of outstanding players, the Eastern sports commentators, are actually paying attention to the San Diego Chargers, which is something new and delightful for us out here in San Diego, where I spent New Year's Eve, the day of New Year's Eve, out sailing.
So just, you know, wherever you are in the world, just want you to know that out here in San Diego, things are great.
In fact, thanks to Troy Sears, and he has a couple of boats that sailed in the Americas Cup races.
In fact, the last one in 2000, Abracadabra, we were on that one.
And his companionship is Stars and Stripes, which was the old Dennis Connor ship in the boat in the Americas Cup back when America had the Americas Cup.
In any event, that was a lot of fun and just brought to mind the fact that we need to remember how to relax, enjoy.
And you know what came out of that in my experience?
A bunch of friends of mine and I went on this boat, and we had a lot of fun.
And what came out of it was, again, a reassertion of this feeling of optimism.
It is unique to Americans that we feel optimistic.
Most humans don't, because next year is likely to be as lousy as last year.
For us, next year is likely to be better than last year, which was better than the year before, which was better than the year before that.
That's the way we think.
And it may not always work out that way, but when you think that way, guess what?
It works out more often than not.
Kind of a little secret to the American psyche.
So that was me on New Year's Eve Day.
There's much to be pessimistic about, by the way.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm a Californian.
And there are a number of things to be pessimistic about.
One is the 910 new laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor here in California in one year alone.
910 new laws.
And as the Washington Times pointed out over the weekend, you can just check your local listings for all the things that are now going to be wrong, all the things for which there's now going to be a new fee, a new tax, all the things for which the nanny state is going to try to make your life better through government regulation and oppression.
By the way, a fine, a fine is a tax for doing wrong.
A tax is a fine for doing well.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh at 1-800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882.
Want to talk about resolutions.
I made some, but I keep them private because I want to see if I, you know, if it works out in the coming year.
But it's interesting to me that this, of all of the customs of the United States, all of the religious-derived customs particularly that have been under attack in recent years and have seen, even including the whole celebration of Christmas, seem kind of almost to go underground.
The idea of making New Year's resolutions is more powerful than ever.
44% in a WNBC Marist Institute poll said they are going to make a New Year's resolution or more than one.
And it's more likely among those who are under 45 than those older adults.
Interesting.
But even more interesting than that, the people are still making resolutions, determining to make their life better.
Again, an American trait, the idea that as well as I've done, can I do better?
Are there things about me that I'd like to improve?
Are there things about me, you know, despite the optimism, we're constantly looking also at improvement.
Believe me, not many human societies run that way.
We do.
There is some research, however, from nine European countries that I think American women are going to find, well, curious.
200,000 women from nine European countries were researched.
The research found that doing household chores, that women doing household chores, protected them against cancer more than doing any other kind of exercise, including playing sports.
So I'll just pass that along for what it's worth.
You think I'm going to touch that for longer than 10 seconds?
No way.
Nor am I going to touch this for longer than 10 seconds.
Monica Lewinsky, whose last name became synonymous with a physical act.
I mean, not many of us, not many of us, have this distinction that our name becomes synonymous with a physical act or a kind of a shorthand to describe something that happened in history.
By the way, the latest of those is Mr. Nyphong, the district attorney who soon won't be, who gained his re-election on the back of a racist appeal in the Duke La Crosse Players incident, if you remember that story.
So to Nyphong now is to have the criminal justice system used against you to help the re-election of the local DA.
I'm a veteran of the Nyphong process even before I knew what the name was.
In any event, the Lewinsky herself, Monica, not as dumb as she looked, just got a master's degree and graduated from the London School of Economics.
One of the alumni there, of course, Mick Jagger.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882.
Let's talk about the Democrats coming into office because that's the as soon as we're through, by the way, with the Ford funeral, which has now gone on almost longer than the Ford presidency, but we're very happy to acknowledge what Mr. Ford did in office because he did some remarkably good things and some remarkably strange things.
I still have my whip inflation now button.
The win button was going to solve the inflationary crisis when, of course, it was caused by his government printing too many dollars.
But, you know, as we found out later.
But I still have my win button.
He is, I think, to be reviled for continuing in office the worst American diplomat in the history of our republic, Henry Kissinger.
But, you know, these are small things compared to the good things he did, basically saving the country from the despair brought on by the fall of Richard Nixon and saving the country from the radical Democrat left, which wanted Nixon tried and hung.
They were basically in a Saddam Hussein mood in 1975, and there was going to be a public hanging.
Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, when I tell you this, I had to live through it.
There was going to be a public hanging, and Ford saved us from that.
It is a little curious and I think ironic that that humble and basically common sense upper Midwesterner, Jerry Ford, would be the subject of what amounts to.
And when he got into office, I mean, he did away with the old Nixonian imperial presidency, all the little phony tinpot hats and the bands and the flourishes and all the trumpets.
And whenever Nixon went out of the White House or went in, there were trumpets for crying out that it was just horrible.
Jerry Ford got rid of all that.
But it's now, and I think this is the irony, the subject of what amounts to an imperial funeral.
And I find it distasteful.
I find all this pomp and circumstance distasteful.
This is a simple man who made a positive mark on America, who did a positive duty at a time, a very, very difficult, if not the most difficult time you can imagine, and who, with the pomp and circumstance, is now lending, I'm sorry, his legacy to a government of, by, and for the government.
This is not the funeral of a people's president.
And I think he was that.
So, again, I hope that today will be the last day for this.
So are the Democrats, by the way, hoping that this will be the last day because they want to get on with the celebrations of acceding to power in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994.
This is going to be the sub.
By the way, there's going to be an orgy.
In political terms, there's going to be an orgy, 100 hours of champagne and celebrations.
And by the way, if you don't have dough, forget about getting in to celebrate the coming to power of the party representing the working man and woman of this, the working families of this country, as they like to say.
They are going to spend millions of dollars.
It will cost you, by the way, $1,000.
I think that's the cheapest one for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for those who want to see Madam Speaker Ms. Pelosi of California in the first of these many, many parties that are going to be held.
So 100 hours of legislation is the headline today in the Washington Post and elsewhere in the drive-by media, cheering on the Democrats.
And I'll get to that 100 hours in a moment, but it's going to be preceded by 100 hours of partying.
By the way, who's paying for all the partying?
Not only the fat cats who have $1,000 ahead, but let it be said that the unions will, of course, be coming in with big money to support what amounts to a presidential inauguration, kind of an imperial inauguration of the Democrats.
But it's interesting how the other much maligned corporations have kicked in, starting with the securities firms, the insurance companies, big oil, including Occidental Petroleum.
You know, evil in the environmentalist left for dumping toxic waste in New York State's Love Canal years ago.
$17,000 to Pelosi's political action committee this last year.
So in a sense, excuse me, in a sense, there's going to be an imperial takeover of Congress, 100 hours of partying and pigging out to make sure the special interests know who's in charge now, and then 100 hours of legislation, which I want to talk about when we come back, because it segues to what else we want to talk about.
I finally figured out, by the way, how to pronounce, and I want to thank Joe Kovacs and WorldNet Daily for helping me here to how to pronounce correctly the name of the president of Iran.
And I think I've got it down now, so I'm going to be saying it this way throughout the, and I could stand to be corrected, but I think it's something like, my mood, I'm in a jihad.
So that will be doing that throughout the show.
And we also have, of course, the polar bear update coming up.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882.
Back after this.
Cut the Cuban music out for the liberation of Cuba and the imminent death of Fidel Castro in 2007.
One of my predictions.
1-800-282-2882.
Roger in for Rush.
And the Democrats now touting in the Washington Post this morning that they're going to have 100 hours of a plan to pass a raft of popular measures promised in the campaign, including tightening ethics rules for lawmakers.
They had an example of the tightening over the weekend when Congressman John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, was cited by the House Ethics Committee for using his staff to perform campaign-related work and, in fact, using taxpayer-paid staffers to run errands for his kids and do shopping and other personal runs for the congressman who apparently is unable to wipe himself without help.
So, John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, is slapped on the wrist.
Now, here's what they did: that as long as Mr. Conyers has, quote, accepted responsibility, unquote, for violating House rules, it'll be okay.
In fact, he can stay right where he is as a chairman of his committee.
The Judiciary Committee.
The man who is cited as using his staff for personal chores and campaign-related campaigns.
Can you imagine a Republican doing this and still being in the House?
I cannot.
That Republican would be gone.
And maybe we should say he should be.
He or she should be.
John Conyers should be gone.
One of the most corrupt members of the House, now found in specific detail to be corrupt.
And by the way, he has six things he has to agree to do, and there has to be a monitor on the worksheets of his staff so that he doesn't do it again.
And Mr. Conyers has agreed and said he'll be a good boy.
Oh, that's all it takes.
Judiciary Committee, here I come.
Not clear whether Vern Buchanan from Florida will be taking his seat.
He won the race to succeed Catherine Harris in Florida over Christine Jennings.
But Pelosi has said, Speaker Pelosi has said, maybe we won't be swearing Mr. Buchanan in on a Koran or otherwise.
There's not going to be a swearing in because we think there was cheating.
There was cheating down there in Florida.
That's right.
We've got to have a recount until the Democrat wins.
In fact, they used those awful, terrible machines that you can break into and so forth and so on.
Notice how that everywhere a Democrat won, they were using those machines too.
No protest whatsoever from Pelosi or any other Democrat as to any Democrat win when the machines were in use, even the ones that are owned by a company influenced by Hugo Chavez, which is another interesting detail from the last campaign.
So let's take a call and get into your thoughts.
Stan in Las Vegas, you're first up in 2007 on the Russ Show.
Go ahead.
Good morning, Roger.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you, sir.
Everybody is praising Ford for healing the nation and everything, and I would like to speculate that had he not pardoned Nixon, that he might have gone on to be reelected, and then the country wouldn't have had to suffer through the four years of the worst president that the United States has ever had besides Bill Clinton.
Well, I agree with that, and so did President Ford.
He believed at the time he did the pardon that it might cost him the election.
I think among conservatives, the pardon, and among, I think, a majority of Americans, the pardon was not so much an issue as it was the nomination of Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president, signaling that he did not want to go along with the evolution of the Republican Party into a truly winning conservative party that wanted to win the Cold War, that wanted to whip inflation by actually reducing printing dollars,
that actually wanted to reduce unemployment by letting loose the employers, the entrepreneurs, the business people to create jobs.
That all came later with Reagan, but Ford made a fateful decision.
He cast his lot with the Rockefeller Republicans, the Scrantons and the like.
And it was a fateful decision.
And I think that, more than the pardon, did him in.
I think it cost this country dearly.
Well, there you go.
All right, Stan, thanks for the call.
Yeah, anything to keep Carter out.
And, you know, there was a moment in the 19, not to rehash ancient history here, but 30 years ago in the 1976 Republican nominating convention, here was Ronald Reagan competing with incumbent Republican president Gerald Ford for the nomination.
This hadn't happened too many times, particularly in the Republican Party, pretty conservative party socially and culturally.
We like to stand behind our elected leaders, Jerry Ford and so forth, with all of the problems of a non-elected president as an incumbent, nonetheless was the Republican standard bearer.
Well, Reagan took after him and probably had enough votes going into this thing to make it, well, it came out very close as it was.
Republicans pulled together behind Ford, but just barely.
And then Ford, for whatever reason, and I think, again, this was another tactical mistake, invited Reagan up.
Now, I was a Reagan supporter, don't get me wrong, but invited Reagan up to the podium after he made his acceptance speech, after Ford made his speech, in a show of unity.
He wanted to show unity in the party by having he and Reagan on the platform.
Unfortunately, he went farther than that and asked Reagan to speak.
Reagan's speech electrified the convention.
Every person sitting there said to themselves, we just nominated the wrong guy.
Every one of them.
Now, everybody went out and worked for Jerry Ford, but everyone knew that Ronald Reagan would be the better candidate of the two just by the two speeches that were back-to-back.
One, a very dull, kind of uninspired sort of typical Jerry Ford talk, and the other one, a typical Ronald Reagan raise the flag, get people's juices flowing kind of speech.
So that, you know, therefore, whatever it's worth is my theory about what happened that, and who cares?
1-800-282-2882.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Here's Phil in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Phil, welcome to the Rush Show.
Thank you very much.
You know, at least Ted Kennedy was smart enough to get it right in that he said that Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon.
Hillary, I know she doesn't use Rodham anymore, but back then, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wasn't she on the Democratic legal staff trying to impeach not only Nixon, but Ford, but anybody else they could get their hands on?
Oh, yeah, she was a foot soldier in the hate Republicans crowd, and Republicans belonged in the dock, and Republicans belonged in jail, and all that, you know, that group.
And today it's a middle of the road, Hillary, by the way, who is plummeting in the polls.
I'll have the latest information coming up on that in Iowa and elsewhere, and more on what's happening with the Democrats' first 100 hours as they seek to, you know, get to your basic issues, like banning trans fat and saving the polar bear and so forth.
They're going to really get to the action agenda that Americans demand action.
1-800-282-2882, Roger Hedgecock in for Rush.
Your calls coming up, as well as a look at the victory in the war on terror.
There has been a major victory, and you won't read about it as such in any of the drive-by media.
I'll have the details for you coming up.
On this first broadcast day of the new year 2007, I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush, who will be here tomorrow.
And of course, all the latest on RushLimbaugh.com on that.
The first 100 hours for the new Democrat majority in the Congress of the United States has its marching orders from the editorial page of the New York Times.
In an editorial entitled An Early Test for Lawmakers, the editorial board says that the first thing that they ought to do is raise taxes.
Now, I don't know whether this is the clearly most predictable 2007 prediction that anyone could have made.
The safest possible prediction you could have made last week is that in this coming year, there will be voices, influential voices, in the Democratic Party saying, you know, there's nothing here that a good tax increase wouldn't fix.
We're going to hear more of that, ladies and gentlemen.
The L.A. Times echoing the New York Times, Washington Post, et cetera, on the Hillary Clinton presidential machine.
This article in Sunday even says that.
Here's the headline: This Clinton machine is a tighter ship.
Subhead, the New York Senator has a seasoned political team ready to act.
And it goes on to interview those who are in her team and her hundreds of millions of dollars and of campaign-raising capability and so forth and so on.
The problem with all this touting of Hillary as inevitable is it isn't working with the voters.
In the U.K., the London Times, TimesOnline.com, had this headline: Hillary falls to earth in poll race.
Here's the way they put it: quote, the first vote is still more than a year away, but the campaign is already throwing up surprises.
Unfortunately, for Senator Hillary Clinton, along the frontrunner in the Democratic drive to retake the presidency, most of them are coming at her expense.
They talk about Iowa, where she is running fourth with only 10% of the vote in a survey of 600 likely Democrat voters in Iowa, in the first of the primary states, 10%.
She is being beaten by, of course, Obama, by even the governor of Iowa, Governor Vilsack, and also by Mr. Edwards, the former losing vice presidential candidate from 2004.
So here she is just fresh from a victory, a pretty strong victory in New York to retake, get another term as a United States Senator from New York, and running fourth in New Hampshire, 23 points ahead a couple of months ago in New Hampshire, I'm sorry, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, 23 points ahead.
A couple of months ago, she is now one point ahead in the latest poll, Barack Obama, Senator Obama, having come up strongly in New Hampshire.
By the way, why Edwards?
Why Edwards?
Well, he is the populist, positioning himself as a southern populist Democrat and talking about his vision of two Americas.
And Edwards, well, you know, is kind of right.
There are two Americas.
One America is the optimistic America that believes in the genius of the American system, in the American dream, in the working hard, in the individual responsibility, in getting ahead is your responsibility, et cetera, et cetera.
One America actually believes, in other words, in America.
There is another America who believes in the power of trial lawyers and government.
Mr. Edwards is from the second group.
1-800-282-2882.
Here's John in Hancock, Maryland.
John, welcome to the Rush Show.
Yes, hi.
First time caller.
How are you today?
Thank you.
I'm just fine.
Happy New Year to you.
I love the dialogue.
Happy New Year to you.
Go ahead.
One of the things that concerns me is after the fluffy first 100 hours of all the things the Democrats would like us to know that they're passing, it will be the when the real agenda starts.
John Edwards and a good number of Democrats took money from labor unions for one specific thing.
They're staking the ground, they're holy grail for this Congress, and that is to take away my rights as a voter.
Currently, if a union wants to come in into my workplace, they first have to get me to sign a card, which is in public.
So goons can stand at the time clock, twist young workers' arms to get them to say, this is just a card saying you have a right to vote and you want to vote.
And what the Democrats would like us, under the dubious title of the American Freedom Workplace Freedom Act, is somehow going to be sponsoring a bill to take away my right to vote that the goons, once they get me to sign a card with the arm twisting in public, I won't get a chance to vote.
That is my vote.
So they can't win, just like the Democrats can't win on the basis of their arguments with the American public.
Labor unions can't win on the basis of their arguments in a pre-election, so they have to change the rules to their favor.
And John Edwards, I heard, took a good bit of money to be the poster boy for that campaign.
I think that's right.
And it's not going to pass.
That particular watering down of the rights of workers to vote is not going to happen.
It's particularly not a part.
It's specifically not a part of the first 100-hour agenda, and I don't think it's part of the first 100-day agenda.
It is, however, you're absolutely right, something that the labor unions are going to be pushing, and we'll, of course, keep you up to date on it.
John, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
No, the 100-hour agenda is going to be interesting.
It's going to, for instance, commit to no new deficit spending.
Well, already John Edwards says it's more important to invest in universal health care than it is to reduce the budget deficit.
So he's coming into direct conflict with all people, Robert Byrd, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, and Congressman David Obie of Wisconsin, who are the incoming Senate and House Appropriations Committee chairmen, respectively.
They're announcing a plan to fund domestic agency accounts at the 2006 levels in 2007.
So they're saying, no, we're holding the line.
Will they really?
Will they try to embarrass Republicans by, in effect, getting on the right of spending, making it out that the Republicans with all the earmarks and all that other stuff, Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska and so forth, are all about big spending, and the Democrats are actually holding the line.
Well, John Edwards is not going to accept that logic for a second.
Hugh in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Hugh, welcome to the program.
Good afternoon.
Hi.
I'm good.
How are you?
Good.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you.
I just think that I've thought for several decades that there are two Americas.
There's the political ruling class, which lives by one set of rules, and then there's another America that actually brings progress and prosperity to the nation.
Well, that's an interesting take, because I'll tell you, you know what's hurting Hillary Clinton the most among average people who aren't tuned in to political issues?
In the back of their mind, they know that there's either been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket since 1980.
That's 26 years of someone either named Bush or Clinton being on the national ticket.
Since 1988, there's been a president named either Bush or Clinton.
And I think most people are going, you know, this isn't a hereditary monarchy here.
Are there other people we could try out for?
I think that's hurting Hillary Clinton more than she knows and more than people are recognizing yet.
For the very reason that you're talking about is there's an American aversion to the political ruling class, particularly, I think, and it comes up as the Republicans, unfortunately, in the spending issue have demonstrated their ability to aspire to that class.
But it is a natural problem for the Democratic Party, which thinks of itself as the ruling class, thinks of itself as the natural majority in the United States.
They are naturally entitled to take as much money as they want out of your paycheck and spend it in ways that are much wiser than you would ever spend it.
This is their attitude, and I've come across it for so many years that it cannot be denied.
So, you know, I'm with you.
I think there are, if you look at it interesting, there are two Americas, if you want to look at it that way, the aspiring political class, the natural rulers who know better than we do about these things, and the rest of Americans who simply want to get on with creating a better life for themselves and for their kids.
Good call, Hugh.
I appreciate it.
All right.
This is interesting today, too, on the presidential battle.
In Iowa and New Hampshire and elsewhere, the number one Republican preference at this early stage is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
A 140-page top-secret plan in his bid for the White House has been found, quote unquote.
I don't know what that means either, but it is interesting.
Published today in the New York Daily News, a remarkably detailed dossier that sets out budget schedules and fundraising plans for Rudy Giuliani, who is not an announced candidate for the presidency to win the race, including some of his serious shortcomings with the voters, the connection in his private sector business, his third wife,
social issues on which he's more liberal than most Republicans, including the abortion issue and, of course, the disgraced former aide Bernard Carrick.
So a lot of issues are pointed out in this 140-page battle plan for Rudy Giuliani.
And make no mistake about it, the presidential race of 2008 is underway.
Whatever the candidates themselves might say, they are running.
And Mitt Romney is about to jump in, the governor of Massachusetts, into the Republican side of this presidential race.
He is hoping that lawmakers in Massachusetts today bring up a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that lawmakers have a constitutional duty to vote on the proposed amendment.
Same-sex marriage advocates are hoping to block that vote.
Romney is hoping to put together a majority of lawmakers to have the vote and to show his leadership on the issue to try to blunt some of criticisms of his formerly liberal positions on those issues as well.
So the presidential race is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen, and we can talk about any aspect of it you'd like after we take this short break.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back after this.
Welcome back to the Russian Limbaugh Program.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush on the EIB network.
And on this first day of 2007, I'm taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
Let's go to Al in Bayside, New York.
Al, you're on the Rush Show.
Hi.
Hi, welcome, and Happy New Year.
Thanks.
Thanks, Roger.
Roger, my question to you is as follows: If this Congress is going to grant citizenship to a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens, each of whom in turn will sponsor over at least five more, you're talking upwards of 70 million people.
Now, if these are all liberal Democratic votes, how is it going to be possible to ever elect a conservative Republican Congress or president again?
In the short term, the answer is it cannot happen.
In the short term, meaning 10 to 20 years, you're absolutely right.
And Joe, here is this to me, for me personally, and I live right here at the border, I mean, about 15 miles away from where I'm broadcasting, is the international border, the busiest border crossing in the world at Tijuana, San Diego.
So for me, it's a huge issue that the Bush administration's just incomprehensible leaning toward amnesty would be coupled with this kind of Wall Street Journal editorial board,
big business, let's bring in everybody and keep the wages low attitude, would be coupled with the left in this country who are, of course, hoping, as you're saying, that the majority, if not the vast majority, of immigrants, legal and illegal, would become good and faithful Democrat voters.
It's amazing to me that we don't have more concern about this because as we speak, Ted Kennedy and John McCain and administration officials are meeting to bring back the McCain-Kennedy bill, offering, in effect, an amnesty with a minor fine and all the rest of it for all of those illegally in the country and at the same time not enforcing our border, not enforcing employer sanctions,
and therefore simply opening the door, as we unfortunately did in 1986, to even more illegal immigration, and as you point out, family reunification and refugee and overstaying visas and students and all the rest of the doors that are open for people to come to the United States.
And I am an immigrant advocate.
I believe immigration has made the country great.
I believe legal immigration has made the country great, I should say, because this kind of immigration threatens our very existence.
And I want to tell you a story.
I want to tell you a story.
Do I have time for this?
I think I do.
A story about a man who called himself Miguel Alfonso Salinas, apprehended near Columbus, New Mexico on September 5.
He was, in fact, transporting Mexican migrants, immigrants, illegals, in his vehicle.
Well, later on, the FBI find out through the Border Patrol that Miguel Alfonso Salinas was actually Ayman Suleiman Kamal, a Muslim Egyptian who was trying to pass as Mexican.
This is happening more and more along our border.
In 2005 alone, about 650 individuals from what the Border Patrol calls special interest countries, that is those who are sponsoring terrorism or in which terrorism is the predominant thing, 650 of these folks were actually apprehended.
How many were not apprehended?
And what is really weird is that the FBI and the CIA are not using this information from the Border Patrol and from the Drug Enforcement Administration to make connections between the obvious link that we see here every day on the border, between the drug trade, illegal immigration, and the terrorist organizations.
Elsewhere throughout the planet, CIA and the FBI know perfectly well the drug trade, take Afghanistan, for example, the drug trade fuels the terrorists.
It's where they get their money.
That's happening across this border as well.
And the Bush administration has continually kept that from the public, in my view, has continually kept these organizations from the kind of coordination that would allow us to recognize this threat.
It isn't so much they're all going to vote Democratic.
It's a question of whether, because of some of these illegals, we'll ever be able to vote.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, and we'll take a short break.
In for Rush Limbaugh, Rush Returns tomorrow.
I'll be back with your call after this.
Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush returns tomorrow.
1-800-282-2882.
Our phone number here.
Taking calls.
Let's squeeze Adam, Lincoln Park, Illinois.
And Adam, hello, welcome, and Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you as well.
Two things.
I'm sorry.
I actually have to disagree with you on.
First and foremost, you're wishing for a swift death for Castro.
I don't, I actually, with a few buddies, we go to Cuba, and I admit, I mean, we buy cigars.
That's the only reason we go.
But not just there.
Here at home, I was able to delve a little more into the history of the country.
We didn't do that country a great service when we allowed Mobsters to turn it into a brothel.
That actually birthed Castro, if you will.
Secondly, I don't necessarily agree with your critique regarding lawyers.
Although I never vote for Edwards, I actually don't think lawyers are the Nathan you proclaim them to be.
They actually do some good.
Okay, well, some good.
Well, I have to agree with that.
As a recovering lawyer myself in the 12-step program, I agree with you that some lawyers, let's see, one, two, three, about four of them, do good.
I appreciate your call.
▲
Export Selection